First of all, the most shocking thing Ms. Novogratz said was how people responded to her initial presence. "Literally within days of arriving, I was told in no uncertain terms by a number of West African women that Africans didn't want saving, thank you very much, least of all by me..."
When hearing this, I couldn't understand why poor women who were barely surviving rejected her charity. That is, until Ms. Novogratz explained what charity does to a person's dignity, and then I understood that dignity takes precedence over survival for these African people, or at least the ones she encountered.
I began to really understand not only the economic, practical aspect of Jacqueline Novogratz's plan for the future, but also the psychological aspect, when she told of the women painting the bakery. No one seemed to care what color they painted the bakery, so Ms. Novogratz decided on blue. When they were all done with the project, one woman finally spoke out and said, "It's very pretty, but green is really our color." Ms. Novogratz went on to explain that poor people don't always know how to speak their minds, mainly because they are used to being dependent on the charity of others. People rarely ask them what they want, but rather give to them as much for their own wellbeing as the recipient's. Therefore, the impoverished learn to make due with what they are given, which is not necessarily a bad thing, except when accompanied by dependence and stunted decision-making. Does this, then, just contribute to the poor remaining in poverty. After all, the New York Times recently did a study that found that about 50% of impoverished children remain in poverty. Can charity begin to explain this?
What interested me was that when Novogratz first got to Africa, no one would accept her charity because of her credibility. She was a young, unwed, childless woman, which was apparenlty unacceptable. The real intriguing part was the fact that the women running the bakery were also young unmarried mothers. Does this connection lead to the idea that it takes one to know one? Did the unwed mothers accept Novogratz's help because they knew she had some understanding of how they felt?
When hearing this, I couldn't understand why poor women who were barely surviving rejected her charity. That is, until Ms. Novogratz explained what charity does to a person's dignity, and then I understood that dignity takes precedence over survival for these African people, or at least the ones she encountered.
I began to really understand not only the economic, practical aspect of Jacqueline Novogratz's plan for the future, but also the psychological aspect, when she told of the women painting the bakery. No one seemed to care what color they painted the bakery, so Ms. Novogratz decided on blue. When they were all done with the project, one woman finally spoke out and said, "It's very pretty, but green is really our color." Ms. Novogratz went on to explain that poor people don't always know how to speak their minds, mainly because they are used to being dependent on the charity of others. People rarely ask them what they want, but rather give to them as much for their own wellbeing as the recipient's. Therefore, the impoverished learn to make due with what they are given, which is not necessarily a bad thing, except when accompanied by dependence and stunted decision-making. Does this, then, just contribute to the poor remaining in poverty. After all, the New York Times recently did a study that found that about 50% of impoverished children remain in poverty. Can charity begin to explain this?
What interested me was that when Novogratz first got to Africa, no one would accept her charity because of her credibility. She was a young, unwed, childless woman, which was apparenlty unacceptable. The real intriguing part was the fact that the women running the bakery were also young unmarried mothers. Does this connection lead to the idea that it takes one to know one? Did the unwed mothers accept Novogratz's help because they knew she had some understanding of how they felt?